[CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication

• Previous message: [CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication
• Next message: [CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I too vote Yes.

Cheers,
George Sangster

Op 11-4-2018 om 08:11 schreef Graham, Sean:
>  
> Aye 
>  
> 
 
> *From:* CPN [ cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu 
] on behalf of James Doyle 
> [ jadoyle at ucdavis.edu 
] 
> *Sent:* April-10-18 10:53 PM 
> *To:* Cantino, Philip 
> *Cc:* Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature; Max Langer 
> *Subject:* Re: [CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication 
>  
> I vote yes. 
>  
> Jim 
> James A. Doyle 
>  
>> On Apr 2, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu 
 
>> <mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
>> wrote: 
>>  
>> Dear CPN members, 
>>  
>> It is time to return to the proposed revision of the PhyloCode 
>> articles on publication, which the CPN considered in February and 
>> early March.  The subcommittee that developed the proposal (Nico, 
>> Dick, Kevin and myself) held a Skype conference on Friday to discuss 
>> your comments.  We appreciate the time and thought that all of you 
>> devoted to this, and we carefully considered your suggestions, some 
>> of which are reflected in the attached revision.  The new Note 4.2.1 
>> addresses issues about electronic publication that were raised by 
>> many of you. 
>>  
>> In the attached draft, the only changes tracked are the new ones 
>> resulting from your comments on the version I sent the CPN on Feb. 6. 
>>  
>> A few comments on the suggestions we did not adopt: 
>>  
>>  
>> Peer review:  Even though it was a departure from the rank-based 
>> codes, the CPN decided years ago that peer review should be a 
>> requirement of the PhyloCode.  The issue is one of quality control.  
>> Although it is not always possible to determine easily if a 
>> publication was peer-reviewed, having the requirement reduces the 
>> likelihood of “taxonomic vandalism” (exploiting the lack of a 
>> peer-review requirement to publish names indiscriminately, to “scoop” 
>> rivals, or to sabotage the phylogenetic nomenclature system).  We 
>> don’t envision checking every name to be sure it was peer-reviewed; 
>> however, the requirement gives the CPN a basis to suppress works that 
>> are shown to be flagrant violations. 
>>  
>>  
>> Regarding Rec. 4.4B, it was suggested that we mention CLOCKSS. 
>> CLOCKSS is a dark archive designed to be a failsafe in case of a 
>> disaster and, as such, is largely inaccessible to individuals.  By 
>> contrast, our goal is to encourage publication in outlets that are 
>> not only archived but also provide broad accessibility.  In addition, 
>> we deliberately avoided listing specific repositories, which may 
>> change over time.  On the other hand, there is nothing in the 
>> recommendation to discourage the use of CLOCKSS. 
>>  
>>  
>> Regarding Note 7.2.2, we retained the rule that material contained 
>> only in electronic supplements is not considered published as defined 
>> in this code.  Our major concerns about electronic supplements are 
>> that they are not as carefully reviewed as the main body of 
>> publications and that they may have less permanence. 
>>  
>> I think we could vote soon on whether to adopt these revised rules, 
>> but let’s wait a few days to give everyone a chance for a final 
>> reading.  There is no need to respond to this email unless there is a 
>> point you want to bring up for further consideration.  I will get 
>> back in touch with you early next week and ask for a vote. 
>>  
>> I am copying this message separately to Max because the listserv 
>> emails are not reaching him for some reason, even though he is listed 
>> on my administrative page as a subscriber.  Please remember to copy 
>> your messages to his addresses < mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br 
 
>> <mailto: mclanger at ffclrp.usp.br 
>, langer.mc at gmail.com 
 
>> <mailto: langer.mc at gmail.com 
>> when you send messages to the CPN 
>> listserv. 
>>  
>> Best regards, 
>> Phil 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Philip D. Cantino 
>> Emeritus Professor 
>> Department of Environmental and Plant Biology 
>> Ohio University 
>> Athens, OH 45701-2979 
>>  
>> Phone: (740) 593-1128 
>> Fax: (740) 593-1130 
>> email: cantino at ohio.edu 
<mailto: cantino at ohio.edu 
> 
>>  
>> <revised publication 
>> requirements.docx>_______________________________________________ 
>> CPN mailing list 
>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
<mailto: CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
> 
>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
>  
>  
> 
 
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: < http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20180413/b528179c/attachment-0001.html 
>

• Previous message: [CPN] Revised rules on electronic publication
• Next message: [CPN] Proposed additions to the PhyloCode (Art. 9)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]